Why Not Mobilize the Arizona Militia?

Faced with deadly cross border forays from Mexican drug cartels, afflicted by the suffocating incursion of nearly a half million illegal aliens, and confronted by a federal government's unwillingness to properly protect the people of Arizona and the United States from such incursions and violence, what is the Governor of Arizona to do? More precisely, what can she lawfully do?

First, a few US Constitution and federal law cites:

The Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress...engage in War, unless invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

Under 32 USC 109, the federal government recognizes state defense forces, aka State Guards, State Military Reserves, State Militias. This force may not be called, ordered, or drafted into US armed forces, e.g. the National Guard.

The Militia Act of 1903 created two classes of militias: 1) organized, i.e. the National Guard, and 2) unorganized, i.e. every able-bodied man 17-45 who is not a member of the National Guard or reserve.

And this from the Arizona Constitution:

Chapter 1, Article 2, Revised Statute 26-124:

A. When the governor proclaims an emergency, and, upon advice of the adjutant general, determines that the national guard does not have sufficient troops to meet the emergency, the governor may authorize the adjutant general to accept for service from the unorganized militia a specified number of volunteers.

B. If the governor deems an emergency of a nature that all or a large portion of the unorganized militia should be called into service of the state, s/he shall by proclamation order all members of the unorganized militia to enroll with the county recorder of the county in which they reside...The persons called into service shall be determined by lot in accordance with a plan devised by the governor and implemented by him/her...

C. Upon mobilization for state purposes members of the unorganized militia shall be organized under the command of the officer the governor designates into units comparable to units of the national guard.

Note: while the Posse Comitatus Act limits the power of the federal government to use the militia for law enforcement, it does not prevent a state governor's calling up the National Guard OR the state militia to respond to domestic emergencies and disasters.

Recent Arizona developments:

My understanding is that a volunteer state military force (aka Homeland Security Force) has yet to be formally mustered which the state could call upon in the event the state's reliance upon the National Guard for homeland security purposes is somehow pre-empted by the federal government or if the National Guard is otherwise unavailable to the state.

Whether what is happening in Arizona constitutes an invasion or a domestic emergency/disaster, it seems abundantly clear to me that the Governor is constitutionally empowered to unilaterally call up the Militia in order to protect the citizens of Arizona whose security is her constitutional responsibility.

So, why hasn't Governor Brewer called up the militia? First, because unlike 22 other states which have formally established State Militias (apart from the National Guard), Arizona does not. Also, her calling up the Militia might well be viewed by many Americans as an over-reaction and, of course, there is the political risk should the militiamen be improperly trained. Or perhaps she's just biding her time until it becomes crystal clear to all that Obama has no intention whatsoever of honoring his constitutional responsibility--that being to properly protect the border--and that she has, therefore, no other recourse if she is to safeguard the citizens of Arizona.

My guess is that if the situation further deteriorates, the Governor cannot in good conscience or in good faith avoid a call-up of the State Militia. And I suspect her action in this regard would be overwhelmingly supported by most Arizonans and Americans everywhere. At least it should be.

My personal belief is that all States--and let Arizona lead the way--must begin, in earnest, to properly prepare themselves to credibly resist both federal overreach and federal dereliction at every turn. Because we live in increasingly perilous and uncertain political times, all states should re-commit themselves to properly asserting their rightful sovereignty as provided by the founders and the Tenth Amendment. If liberty and the Republic are to survive the relentless Progressive onslaught, there is simply no other reasonable option.

Update: Obama Eligibility Brief

The burning issue of Obama's possible ineligibility continues to brew. And though I have monitored developments, I have assumed, rightly or wrongly, that others have been following this tortured saga as well. But, for those who haven't strayed into this unsettling and dispiriting territory, here's a very brief synopsis for your review.

In a recent interview with the Egyptian Foreign Minister which was aired on Nile TV, Obama admitted he was a Muslim. In his book, he admitted his father was Kenyan, a British Citizen at the time. And in a recent speech, his wife, Michele, proudly confirmed that Barry, her husband, was born in Kenya. So, is Obama a serial prevaricator? Most likely. And I don't need to insult your intelligence by rehashing here the mountain of evidence supporting that conclusion.

So, just who is this guy? And why all the mystery and unanswered questions about his background, his foundational beliefs and legal qualifications to be America's president? No one but Obama’s closest inner circle of academics, apparatchiks, ideological sycophants, political handlers, lawyers and his gaggle of neo-Marxist advisors seems to know for sure. We sure as hell don't, but, increasingly, many more of us are starting to seriously wonder--and ask.

It's very important to remember that, to date, Obama has spent nearly $2 million to block all attempts to access his college and passport documentation as well as his long form birth certificate, the latter reportedly still in lockdown in Hawaii. Whether it's there or not remains to be seen. By executive order when elected, he put his personal information off limits and hired a team of lawyers to keep enquiring minds at bay on that score. Why?

To date, of course, no law suit against Obama has succeeded. Why? Because, according to the courts, neither do they have the authority to adjudicate the issue nor do "we the people" have the "standing" to bring such law suits. Incredible! Like, who does then? A citizen of Mali? Surely, this is an outrageous and potentially disastrous breach in our judicial system. At this time, and in response to this electoral and judicial aberration, state legislatures in OK, AZ, GA, VA and IN are working on legislation to require any future presidential candidate to submit adequate proof of his/her eligibility before the candidate's name can be placed on the ballot in those states. Better late than never, I suppose.

Recently, a decorated and thoughtful Army medical officer, LTC Lakin, refused to obey orders to deploy to Afghanistan for the second time on the grounds that the deployment orders were illegitimate since, to him, the eligibility of the Commander-in-Chief is in serious doubt. Courageously opting for a court martial, his intention is to force discovery upon the Obama legal team. Can a defendent in the American judicial system actually be denied discovery? I wouldn't put anything past this White House. Thus, the military is definitely in a quandary over this one. Will they do the White House's bidding, or will a defendent's right of discovery be sustained? Stay tuned. Right now, the outcome is an open question.

Although Article II, Section 1 of our tattered Constitution, that pesky impediment to tyranny, unambiguously requires that all presidents be “natural born citizens”, meaning that, minimally, they be born of two US Citizen parents, from the beginning of Obama’s whirlwind and glitzy campaign it is painfully obvious that no electoral officials seriously bothered to properly and substantively establish his constitutional eligibility to occupy the White House, the “People’s House”.

And despite scurrilous criticism and mindless epithets hurled at them, Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC), Rep. Mike Ritze (R-OK), Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL), and Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA) have all openly questioned the constitutional eligibility of Obama to serve as our Commander-in-Chief. Among others, Rep Ray Blount (R-MO), Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs, and even Gov. Sarah Palin have also expressed their belief that questions about Obama’s eligibility are, indeed, legitimate.

Also, Bill Posey (R-FL) has already introduced HR 1503 in Congress which would require that, in the future, a campaign committee must submit the “birth certificate” (not a meaningless certificate of live birth) and “other documentation as may be necessary to establish a candidate’s qualifications” to be President. As said, current law does not require such a minimal level of substantive proof. Incredibly, proof of a person's qualifications has heretofore been determined by the outcome of the election itself, not by the electoral system's scrutiny of one's qualifications prior to the election. Amazingly shortsighted and potentially explosive.

As Judge Roy Moore, former Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice, opined, “Why doesn’t the president have to show that he’s a natural born citizen?...We’ve had all kinds of suits filed, and the press doesn’t mention them and the courts continually reject them…It’s troubling to me because we’ll suffer the consequences if we ignore the Constitution.” No kidding.

The awful truth is that the fawning liberal press deliberately ignores the issue, the courts refuse to review the merits of the many cases brought before them because they lack legal authority, the Supreme Court can't muster the 4 votes needed to hear the case, and those grassroots Americans seeking the truth are denied their right to challenge Obama’s eligibility because they lack legal standing. Wow! Talk about conundrums and brick walls. Democracy at work?

Obviously, the deleterious effect on the country's stability at every level should a usurper, or worse, be occupying the White House would be severe and far more unsettling than Watergate or any previous political scandals visited upon the Republic. But the calamitous effect on the United States if a usurper were simply allowed to occupy the White House, this to merely avoid political confrontation and unpleasantness, is far and away much more insidious.

Yup! Obama, Mr. Transparency, The One, The Post-Racial President, the most transformative, scripted and off-the-charts intelligent chief executive in our history--and the least known and most dissembling--is definitely one-of-a-kind alright. And in so many nefarious and unflattering ways.

Hold your breath and tighten your belts, folks. This seedy tale of intrigue and possible treachery has yet to unfold. But I am cautiously optimistic that in the end, the truth, whatever that might entail, will prevail. And, more importantly, so will the Constitution, the Republic and "We the People". For, in the end, that's what this struggle for the truth is really all about. Nothing more and nothing less.

Oil Spill Advances Obama's Ideological Agenda

Catastrophic as the BP oil spill is, it is a blessing to ideologically-driven environmentalists who, like their President, are conveniently using this tragedy to justify a halt to all new offshore oil drilling--not that they were ever supportive of drilling anywhere on land or sea in the first place.

But, no sense letting a crisis go to waste, huh?

In a recent teleprompted moment of spin, the Prez also announced an increase in investments in renewable sources of energy in order "to compete" in that sphere "with countries like China." WHAT? Already 75% coal-dependent for its energy needs, China is, in fact, accelerating--NOT reducing--its offshore oil drilling operations. China's being competitively engaged in the development of alternative fuels is not even remotely true.

But, don't let the facts get in the way of your ideologically-driven agenda, Mr. President.

The terrible truth is that if BHO and his fatuous environmentalist and socialist allies have their way, the BP calamity will generate painfully higher energy costs for all Americans, needlessly increase unemployment, force petroleum companies to move their operations overseas, further erode the dollar's value and increase America's reliance on foreign oil.

Brilliant, Mr. President. So very inspired, and so very patriotic of you.

This Administration's pernicious shortsightedness, rank incompetence and ideological asininity are both self-destructive and, frankly, malfeasant. A foreign invader couldn't do a better job of debilitating the Republic than have the Obama transformationalists.

Can't wait until America-first adults are in charge once again. November 2010 and 2012 can't come soon enough. Let's just pray there are enough pieces to pick up by then.

Ultimately, Only "We the People" Can Restore Constitutional Order

Published by NYS 10th Amendment Center 5/5/10

Unbridled federal perversion of the Constitution continues to threaten the foundation of the Republic, and only if the balance of power between States and the National Government is fully restored can the Republic survive.

Perceptive students of history, our founders well-understood that government inherently seeks political supremacy; that it is, by nature, contemptuous of individualism and is, in the long run, a mortal threat to our unalienable rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.

However, despite the wisdom of our founders and the incontrovertible evidence of history, under the pretense of "helping the poor" Progressives continue to cynically pursue the socialist transformation of America.

To Progressives, it is irrelevant that Socialism invariably stifles initiative, chronically lowers the standard of living and erodes personal liberty. That it is a wildly failed philosophy precisely because it ignores human nature is completely disregarded.

We now find ourselves in a titanic ideological struggle whose outcome is anything but certain. But this we know: our Republic cannot survive the ruthless Progressive onslaught unless We the People insist that our States assert their 10th Amendment rights, failing which We the People are left with no other recourse than to assert our sovereign authority.

We must remember that our founders counseled that it is not only the people's right, but, indeed, their sacred duty to restore Constitutional order whenever our republican institutions at either the State or Federal level violate that order.

VAT: An Unmitigated Disaster for Free Enterprise

A VAT tax would be the proverbial nail in the coffin for our once thriving free enterprise system. Chronically high unemployment rates, a burgeoning growth in government, more costly dependency on government, and anemic economic growth far into the future will surely result.

As you know, VAT, or a value-added tax, is, for all practical purposes, a national sale tax on the price of goods at each stage of production. In short, VAT is an insidiously regressive tax, a silent economic killer which would increase the cost of goods for everyone--inclusive of those least able to pay.

Though Obama has characterized VAT as a "novel" idea which has "worked in other countries", meaning our economically comatose socialist friends in Europe, he hasn't taken VAT off the table and would consider adoption of VAT should his bi-partisan "deficit commission" recommend it in December. But, does anyone really have any serious doubts about where Obama's sentiments lie on this issue?

In an interview I heard recently, his preference for reducing our unsustainable deficit is to reduce "wasteful spending". Hmmmm. But, of course, we all know that virtually all entitlement programs--newly hatched, long-standing, and those yet to be foisted upon us--are near and dear to his ideologically driven heart and would never be considered "wasteful spending" by any self-respecting neo-Marxist. So, there's scant chance that extravagant entitlement spending will be effectively reigned in on his watch. Of that we can all be certain.

Thus, my fear is that VAT will be adopted but that it will do absolutely nothing to appreciably reduce deficits. In fact, if anything, VAT will serve only to feed the proverbial beast by condoning existing profligacy and encouraging more growth in entitlement spending. In short, indulging a drug addict with more drugs simply doesn't work to correct the addiction.

Taken in combination with existing tax burdens, e.g. state and local property & sales taxes, other hidden service fees/tariffs and federal income taxes, the tax burden for Americans could well catapult to a suffocating 70% level, and in painfully short order. And, remember, taxes never go down. They invariably go up, up, and up.

And even with VAT, to reduce the deficit the gov't will still be compelled to reduce the amount given back to the taxpayers in the form of reduced entitlements. And both you and I know that since that's most likley not going to be tolerated by a majority of voters, such reduction will not be sanctioned by a self-serving government hellbent on buying our votes with our money.

The solution, of course, is to drastically reduce government to a third of its current gargantuan, parasitic size. For a start, get rid of the rapacious Dept. of Education, et. al. departments, bureaucracies which have no Constitutional basis for existence. Then quickly and intelligently reduce entitlements across the board and, going forward, rely upon free market principles to reduce the cost of social security and medical care. And if that can't be timely accomplished by Washington elites, then it looks like an expedited Article V Constitutional Convention is in order to get the job done once and for all.

Finally, squandering America's stellar intellectual resources by not tapping their expertise to solve problems of this magnitude is the height of irresponsibility and superficiality. Let's face it, folks, there are some very bright and extremely well-grounded economists out there who could do a spectacularly better job of fashioning a plan to rescue America from bankruptcy than the gaggle of political hacks comprising Obama's insipid "deficit commission". But, then, Obama and company aren't really looking for honest, cogent and intelligent solutions, are they.

Commerce Clause, Necessary and Proper Clause & Obamacare

04/21/10
Having culled through reams of often esoteric judicial analyses and rulings since ratification of the Constitution in 1787, the inescapable conclusion is that over the years the Supreme Court, Congress and the Executive have egregiously misinterpreted and progressively broadened the original and intentionally narrow meaning the Framers attached to both the Commerce Clause and the Necessary & Proper Clause. And therein lies the problem: liberal misinterpretation of these clauses has provided the federal government the means to extend its jurisdiction and control far beyond the Framers’ original intent.

Obamacare’s “individual mandate” has once again put Art 1, Sec 8, Clause 3, the Commerce Clause, front and center. And like all things Constitutional these days, even a casual observer can readily see that over the years the courts and the politicians have managed to grossly distort--indeed violate--the original meaning and intent of this clause with a litany of tortured legal argumentation and capricious social engineering justifications.

To begin with, the Commerce Clause states that the United States Congress shall have the power “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” Not surprisingly, when linked with Art 1, Sec 8, Clause 18, aka the Necessary and Proper Clause, over the years the federal government has empowered itself to further and irresponsibly expand the original scope of the Commerce Clause

By way of background, as a direct result of the Founders’ unsettling experience with the Articles of Confederation, the Framers understood the practical need to better ensure unimpeded uniformity in interstate commerce, that is to say the unencumbered “trade or exchange” of goods among the states, this in order to achieve efficient interstate commercial intercourse free of State-imposed discriminatory and retaliatory restrictions such as duties which if left unchecked could well have led to the collapse of the confederation itself.

As James Madison counseled, “[the federal regulation of commerce] is necessary to preserve the Union, for “without [such regulation], the Union will infallibly crumble to pieces.”

Therefore, as nearly as I can deduce this effort to achieve uniformity was intended to reduce, minimize, or altogether eliminate needless and onerous State-mandated barriers and regulations which served to impede the free and efficient trade or exchange of goods among the States. Period.

It is important to note that the limits of congressional jurisdiction over interstate commerce may be easily found in Clauses 5 and 9 of Art 1, Sec 9:

Clause 5: “No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."

Clause 6: “No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports
of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter,
clear, or pay Duties in another."

Clearly, the emphasis is on interstate duties and revenues, not upon the articles/goods traded or produced. Thus, as originally understood the power to regulate interstate trade did not mean the authority to prohibit, nor did it in any way imply the power to impose penalties for violations of the Commerce Clause.

Important to note too is that the Necessary and Proper Clause, a clause relentlessly exploited by Progressives over the years, was in no way intended by the Framers to permit the federal government to assume any authority outside its clearly defined enumerated powers in Art 1, Sec 8. To wit, in John Marshall’s discussion of McCulloch v Maryland, he clearly drew a distinction between the proper definition of “necessary” as meaning “indispensably requisite” versus the improper definition being that of “convenient”. In other words, the federal government could not arrogate unto itself any extraordinary implementing power other than that which was clearly “indispensably requisite” in order to execute its clearly defined enumerated powers, in this case to regulate interstate commerce.

Tragically, a cursory examination of case law since ratification of the Constitution demonstrates how the proper definition has often been ignored, misconstrued or grossly misinterpreted by an overweaning Congress and an enabling gaggle of misguided or politically activist jurists.

Having consulted applicable Federalist papers and Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language, the latter which guided the Framers in their choice and meaning of words, it is obvious that the Constitutional meaning of “commerce” was limited to the trafficking and exchange of goods between the states from one port to another, and not at all to the regulation of INTRAstate production, manufacturing, sale, or the quality of goods/articles; that, therefore, the central and sole purpose of the Commerce Clause was to affirmatively prevent the confusing, conflicting and disorderly imposition of duties among the states. Nothing more.

Even casual examination of founding documents underscores our Framers’ clear understanding that “regulate” in 1787 meant “to make regular or normal” or “to remove impediments” to the free flow of interstate commerce. Again, it manifestly did NOT mean federal control or the federal imposition of regulations over the INTRAstate production of goods and services.

Significantly, the US v E.C. Knight Co. ruling in 1895, aka the Sugar Trust Case, asserted the States’ sphere of power in matters of commerce thusly:

1. Production is always local, and under the exclusive domain of the States
2. Commerce among the States (interstate commerce) does not begin until goods
commence their final movement from their state of origin to that of their
destination.
3. The sale of any product is merely an incident of its production and is therefore
under the domain of the State because its effect on interstate commerce is merely
incidental.
4. Combinations or associations organized for the sale and distribution of goods
are under the regulatory power of the State since the effect on interstate commerce is
indirect, not direct.

Can’t get clearer than that. The ruling upheld and sharply emphasized the core restraints on federal power as intended by the 10th Amendment.

Following passage of the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 which created the Interstate Commerce Commission which was principally intended to check railroad abuse and discrimination, the level of federal usurpation which ensued was nothing short of mind-boggling--almost laughable if it weren’t so utterly unconstitutional. (For example, I learned that the hapless hamburger is now subject to no fewer than 41,000+ State and federal regulations, covering everything from meat production, grazing practices of cattle, conditions in the slaughterhouse, processing methods, sales to retailers, restaurants and fast-food outlets. Ketchup is another example of regulatory overreach: to be considered Grade A, it must flow no more than 9 centimeters in 30 seconds at 69 degrees Fahrenheit. Progressive insanity!)

Though Congress has cited the Commerce Clause to justify its Obamacare, logic and an objective analysis of original intent clearly demonstrate that individual mandates, as called for in the healthcare law, are woefully unconstitutional. But to myopic and Progressive “living constitution” adherents who care little about the original meaning of the Constitution, or, frankly, the Constitution in any of its original form, Obamacare is nothing more than a another harmless necessary and proper expansion of the federal government’s implied vs enumerated powers. Where are our Founders when they are so sorely needed?!?!?!? Where are our uncorrupted constitutional scholars, representatives and jurists?!?!?!?!?

With particular respect to Obamacare, I couldn’t find one single court ruling in the history of the United States which remotely endorsed the right of the federal government to mandate that every person purchase a product or service or be fined for not doing so. Not one! And though it’s difficult to imagine that even a liberal Supreme Court could clear-headedly and in good conscience rule in favor of this mandate, don't forget the corrosive influence of judicial activism and congressional overreach which have  passed for rule of law in these United States over the last 100 years. And should the Supreme Court uphold Obamacare, which is more likely than not, then Americans must carefully recall and take to heart these words in the Declaration of Independence:

“…But when the long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government [or abusive power], and to provide new guards for their future security.” Amen to that!

So, if the courts fail to restore constitutional governance, and the chances are better than even they won't, what’s the answer to this unrestrained federal overreach? Very simply, we must take action to restore the sovereignty of “we the people”!!! Our merely waiting for the next election to throw the bums out and to replace them with what will likely be yet another crop of bums may sound like a solution, but it will accomplish nothing. Inescapably, State nullification action--with teeth--in combination with widespread civil disobedience are most likely the only way to peacefully restore constitutional order. It’s now or never...

“…whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are
unauthoritative, void, and of no force; where powers are assumed by the federal government which have not been delegated by the Constitution, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.” James Madison, & Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky & Virginia Resolutions, 1798

"The true key for the construction of everything doubtful in a law is the intention of the law-makers. This is most safely gathered from the words, but may be sought also in extraneous circumstances provided they do not contradict the express words of the law." Thomas Jefferson, ltr to Albert Gallatin, 1808

"The court will almost assuredly resort to the great defense shield of denial known as 'stare decisis' as a clever way of protecting the courts own judicial malpractice from scrutiny while at the same time leaving its vast centralization of power in Congress intact." P.A. Madison, Federalist Blog, 2010

"What is to be the consequence, in case the Congress shall misconstrue this part [the necessary and proper clause] of the Constitution and exercise powers not warranted by its true meaning, I answer the same as if they should misconstrue or enlarge any other power vested in them...the success of the usurpation will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislatie acts; and in a last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people, who can by the elections of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers." James Madison, Federalist No. 44

POSTSCRIPT:
In 2012, Chief Justice Roberts gratuitously and stunningly ruled that Obamacare's "mandate" was, in fact, a tax, this despite Obama's own attorneys insisting--for purely political reasons--that the mandate was not a tax, thus rendering congressional imposition of the mandate, err tax, within the scope of congressional authority. Doesn't get more lawless and hairbrained than this.

The "Supremacy Clause" Menace

03/30/10
For a painfully long time now, the federal government has relied upon a perverted interpretation of the Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause to justify its unconstitutional overreach.

In 2010, it is now relying upon a faulty and expansive interpretation of these clauses to justify Obamacare. Relying upon our Founders' wisdom as expressed in their own words, and upon a few foundational 19th century Supreme Court rulings, in this post I have attempted to very briefly show how extraordinarily flawed modern liberal Supremacy Clause justifications really are.

Article VI, Paragraph 2 (Supremacy Clause); “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

The practical purpose of this clause was to eliminate the confusing and often conflicting matrix of State-made treaties with foreign powers which afflicted the union under the Articles of Confederation. Primarily intended to ensure that only the federal government could legally enter into treaties with foreign entities, this clause was uniformly binding upon the States; however, it is important to note in passing that this clause was never intended to accommodate treaties with any foreign entity, e.g. the UN, which would in any way supersede the U.S. Constitution.

Based upon my reading of the Constitution and applicable Federalist Papers, this clause underscored the Founders’ belief that when exercising any of the powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution ( per Art 1, Sec 8) the federal government must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent State exercise of power, certainly a prudent and practical approach to achieving orderly governance.

Further amplifying this meaning, in McCulloch v Maryland (1819), Chief Justice Marshall ruled that “the government of the Union, though limited in its power, is supreme within its sphere of action.” Thus, the Supremacy Clause renders Congressional power supreme only insofar as the power exercised is within its clearly defined enumerated powers (Art. 1, Sec 8).

An ardent advocate of a strong central government, even James Madison, aka “father of the Constitution”, stated that “the proposed [federal] government cannot be deemed a national one, since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all objects.”
Alexander Hamilton, no less an advocate of a strong central government, warned that “it will not follow from this doctrine (supremacy/preemption) that acts of the large society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.”
In Dred Scott v Sandford (1857), the court ruled that “although the Government of the United States is sovereign and supreme in its appropriate sphere of action, yet it does not possess all the powers which usually belong to the sovereignty of a nation. Certain specified powers, enumerated in the Constitution, have been conferred upon it; and neither the legislative, executive, nor judicial departments of the Government can lawfully exercise any authority beyond the limits marked out by the Constitution.”
In United States v Reese (1876), the court ruled that “within its legitimate sphere, Congress is supreme;…but if it steps outside of its constitutional limitations, and attempts that which is beyond its reach, the courts are authorized to annul its encroachments upon the reserved power of the States and the people.”

The Federalist Blog notes that “if you want to invalidate some State law under the preemption doctrine the burden is on the plaintiff to point to the clause in the United States Constitution that exclusively delegates Congress the authority to make the law, and point to the express prohibition against the States to touch it. Simply having two conflicting laws is not enough; the burden is on the federal government to show its law is in pursuance of the Constitution and that it is an area expressly prohibited to the States to act upon, and thus, giving the law national supremacy.” For 10th Amendment advocates, this is a very important point.

Fearful of tyrannical federal overreach, framers John Hancock, Sam Adams, Patrick Henry and George Mason demanded more specificity with respect to the delineation of federal and state powers/jurisdiction. Thus, the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, was adopted which explicitly limited powers of the newly formed federal government. To wit, the 9th Amendment states that “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,” and the 10th Amendment which states that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”.

Thus, despite federal attempts to draw upon “necessary and proper” (Art. 1, Sec 8, para 18) justifications for expansively exercising federal authority, ALL powers not specifically delegated to the federal government reside exclusively with the States and the people. Though activist jurists have, over the years, made mincemeat of these clear-cut foundational principles, it’s really this simple and straightforward. In short, the true intention of the framers is perfectly clear and their words are available for politicians and jurists alike to read.

To either a layman or constitutional scholar, it should be crystal-clear that for the federal government to exercise its authority by reliance upon the Supremacy Clause the exercise of that authority must be in keeping with constitutionally enumerated restraints. And to ensure the integrity of constitutional order, under the 10th Amendment unconstitutional federal laws may not only be properly pre-empted, but MUST be pre-empted/nullified by the states. (Note the Virginia & Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 in which Thomas Jefferson and James Madison sanctioned the right and duty of States to assert their sovereignty by nullifying unconstitutional acts of Congress.)

Though perverted case law since the Constitutional Convention now suggests otherwise, no amount of judicial revisionism, political expediency or social engineering can lawfully justify our conveniently misinterpreting or willfully conceal the Constitution's original intent and meaning.

Like a malignant cancer, my hope is that all case law which has defiled and deviated from the original intent and meaning of the Constitution over the years will, in time, be excised/nullified—sooner rather than later-- from the laws of our land. And I pray that this is the unwavering goal of any Constitutional Convention or conservative platform going forward.

A return to our Constitutional roots is all that can save the Constitution and the exceptional country it has spawned. And it is toward that noble end all Americans must strive lest our Republic, the most vibrant and most successful political experiment in the history of Mankind, is lost forever to ourselves, our progeny and to the world.

("If it be asked, What is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a Republic? The answer would be, An inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws--the first growing out of the last...A sacred respect for the constitutional law is the vital principle, the sustaining energy of a free government." Alexander Hamilton, 1794)
(“There comes a time in each generation when people must decide whether to stand up and defend their natural rights or bow down before the seat of power. Let us steadfastly maintain our resolve to see this battle through to victory!” John Tate, President, Campaign for Liberty, March 2010)

("Experience has shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." Thomas Jefferson)